Reverend Joe's Official Rock and Roll Thread

[Hooahguy]

you were right about the song needing bass.
but i will say, its catchy...

[Reverend Joe]

What are they putting in the water in Sweden?

Graveyard: a damn good psychedelic classic rock band, they just released their first album in 2008. Kinda like Witchcraft, but definitely less folky and more on the heavy side. What I really like about these guys is, unlike so many American bands, they don't fall into the trap of assuming fuzzy, shoegazy songs that sound like bad ripoffs of the Brian Jonestown Massacre (I ing HATE the Brian Jonestown Massacre!) are "psychedelic;" it kinda reminds me of how ecstasy-rolling idiots think they're tripping, when what they're really getting is a shallow, lovey-dubby speed tweak. OK, rant over -- these guy are the real deal, transmitting the psychedelic tendencies and roots of Black Sabbath and other such proto-metal bands. My only complaint? They could really turn up the amps a little more. Just because you're bringing back an older sound doesn't mean you have to imitate the poor production values as well.

[Reverend Joe]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that Slayer sounds like Emerson Lake & Palmer went metal?

(No, nothing new today.)

[Reverend Joe]

Howzabout an older band?

Buffalo: an Australian heavy rock band from the 70's. They describe themselves as "progressive;" and they are progressive-ish, but also distinctly Sabbathine in their sound. Damn good guitar solos in particular; also good riffs in general and the lead singer has an appealing voice -- very heavy-psychedelic.

[Raz]

Hey I like that fuzzy, shoegazey stuff, though I guess it doesn't really fall into the Rock & Roll genre. Keep these bands coming.

[Reverend Joe]

It really has been a while this time, and we got a slightly less hard-rockin' band. But the country boy in me must speak out.

the Deadstring Brothers: I was iffy about these guys at first, but as time passes I feel better and better about them. They are classic, 70's Charlie Daniels-style Southern Rock, albeit a bit heavier (you just gotta be to keep from being left behind in the dust, though.) Their songs are still noticeably lighter than even most current pop-alt-rock, but they more than make up for it with pure soul. I challenge you to keep a smile from your face after listening to even one song.

[naut]

Pretty rockin'.

[Reverend Joe]

If I can collect myself for a moment, I will post a review of the (fairly) new Litmus album.

Or I might just get drunker.. we'll see. Watch for an edit.

[Reverend Joe]

I think this will be my last post here. Quite frankly, it's too much of a hassle to find new bands when there are so many older ones to explore (James Gang, Humble Pie and the like) and I have too little time on my hands to really try posting in this thread frequently. So, my last band to post will be a bit of a sellout for all my fans, because, quite frankly, why not? I'm not bothering to push the envelope anymore. It's up to y'all.

Anyhow, here they are: Mastodon, performing their song, The Czar. I say I am a sellout because they really are straight-up Heavy Metal, and fairly popular compared to most of the dudes I've posted, but quite frankly, I like them. They aren't your usual self-obsessed Metal band, desperate to be the next Slayer or the worst, dirtiest band out there. Their earlier albums were certainly more crazy-ass metal inclined, but their latest album, "Crack the Skye," actually reminds me more of Rush or Pink Floyd than Slayer et al. It's a refreshingly intelligent, out-there album, somewhat psychedelic and Pink Floyd inflected, but still heavy metal in its delivery. It's quite endearing, actually.

So, give it a try; and then do me a favor and dig as far as you can, through all the random terrible Myspace music pages, and all the random Amazon references, and find the last of the good bands out there, and enjoy yourselves.

Rock and roll!

[Hooahguy]

ill second RV and say that mastodon is awesome. but i wil say Crack the Skye is ruined byt he screaming parts.

[naut]

Wolf People. Enjoy.

[Lord Winter]

ill second RV and say that mastodon is awesome. but i wil say Crack the Skye is ruined byt he screaming parts.

It's an acquired taste. I find it hard to understand why people cut themselves off from some great just because of harsh vocals.

[Reverend Joe]

Yaaargh! Back from the dead!

By the way, anyone ever heard of Wet Willie? For some reason they classify themselves as Southern Rock, but honestly they are more like a southern-soul-rock band; in fact, they remind me of a laid-back (and much better) version of the Blues Brothers, or maybe a white boy's imitation of the wicked Wilson Pickett. I should really be posting this in July or August because they go great with getting shitfaced on Budweiser in a desperate attempt to stay cool that ends up with you sweating your balls off on a hot-ass dog day evening while eating Church's Chicken and listening to something like this while the sun sets at eleven at night.

Yeeeeeaaah... that's the stuff.

It's an acquired taste. I find it hard to understand why people cut themselves off from some great just because of harsh vocals.

(sorry for the belated response, but...) I think the problem most people have with hoarse, shouted vocals is that they have been overused, and plus they are associated with a lot of bad metal like Black/Death/whatever metal, i.e. the kinda stuff that drove metal far away from its much more accessible 80's styles. I don't think it's so bad in the Mastodon album, though; I think they use it little enough to have an actual aesthetic effect.

[Raz]

Thoughts / opinions on post-rock?
Been really getting into the genre for the last couple months.

Bands such as; GY!BE; Explosions in the Sky; Sigur Ros; Mogwai; et al.

[naut]

I do like Sigur Ros. I haven't really explored the genre though. I've been busy dabbling in Indie rock and related genres.

[Raz]

Ahh, the Australian Indie Rock scene... Big Day Out, no?

[naut]

Ahh, the Australian Indie Rock scene... Big Day Out, no?

I wanted tickets. Not for any of the Indie bands they're all pretty rubbish --- Tame Impala and Midnight Juggernauts aside --- but for Mars Volta, ridiculous band live.

[Reverend Joe]

I think I mentioned them a while back (I'm not gonna check -- with the speed the forum is moving at it would take fifteen minutes) but Lions in the Street finally got around to releasing their first album recently. True to what I expected, it's a supercharged Rolling Stones ripoff, which isn't really a bad thing, because they really, really rock. They're loud, but not overly loud, and they know how the hell to write a song and use a studio. But what's really pleasing about the album is, like their EP released way back in 2007, they know how to put together an album. It's not something people really think about in recent times, since our interest has reverted to singles as opposed to being forced to listen to giant discs of vinyl.* But if you take the time to listen to their album all the way through, you will see what I mean. It's not just a collection of songs, with the singles obviously standing out from filler, or a giant garbage can of everything they've written within the past several years.** The ordering of songs has been chosen carefully so that your interest is piqued every time a new song comes up. You are much less likely to "zone out" and decide to change artists. I can also tell they put a lot of thought into choosing the right songs, because there are a number of songs on the EP's that didn't make it to the album that were still pretty damn good -- so maybe they are playing it smart and not releasing everything at once (see below again... *sigh*). And if you want to just listen to individual songs, there's more than enough to choose from. The album is a bit long, at 48 minutes (an album really shouldn't reach over 40-45 minutes, leaning towards 40) but it's not so long that most people will lose interest before its end, and plus the songs themselves are good enough to maintain interest. The only other complaint I have is that "Truer Now' and "How Could I Be So Blind" should be reversed, and the latter given a proper ending instead of a fade-out. It's not a huge problem, but there's nothing like a fantastic soul-rock number about a broken heart to finish your album off, and anyhow I think "Truer Now" is somewhat weaker than "So Blind."

So... dig it like a garden, ad tell me what you think.

*Which is not entirely a bad thing, especially since changing a disc requires way more work than clicking a button or instantly downloading a song, and especially if you have a clunky-ass POS "stacking" portable turntable like me -- but enough of that. Point is, technology ain't all bad.

**Why the hell do people do that?! Seriously, just look at Wolfmother's albums -- they're WAY too long! Split that **** up and sell it as two albums; you'll make SO much more money! Just because you have an entire CD's worth of play time doesn't mean you need to fill the whole goddamn thing, because nobody's going to want to listen to all of it and you end up wasting a lot of money and time making useless songs that could be used as perfectly good secondary songs on a regular-length album, instead of turning into sonic mush because your album is a bloated mess.

[Raz]

**Why the hell do people do that?! Seriously, just look at Wolfmother's albums -- they're WAY too long! Split that **** up and sell it as two albums; you'll make SO much more money! Just because you have an entire CD's worth of play time doesn't mean you need to fill the whole goddamn thing, because nobody's going to want to listen to all of it and you end up wasting a lot of money and time making useless songs that could be used as perfectly good secondary songs on a regular-length album, instead of turning into sonic mush because your album is a bloated mess.

I'd politely disagree about your comment on "making SO much more money", but then I realised that the mainstream music industry of all the major recording labels loves nothing more than making money.
*waves a tiny flag saying "indie!" *

I find that lengthy songs creating lengthy albums make for good listening. My recent favourites have average track lengths of about 9:30 minutes. Multiply that by eight and you have an album. One of my favs takes it to a such a degree with a double album of four tracks - total length: 87 minutes. You do the math. I like being able to hit "play" on an album and simply letting the music take over. Having to actively hit "next song" to get to the 'good stuff' is bothersome. Having an album that's terrific start-to-finish is hard to come by. I've found that the less tracks on the album equates to less chance of stuffing it up.

Though I must agree that some bands end up producing albums of "sonic mush" that kind of drags the whole album down. No matter how much you try and avoid it, it'll crop up every now and then.

PS: Hmmm, now that I've re-read your post, I suppose I'm a very patient listener compared to you.

[naut]

Double albums, or albums of length, are alright but are hard to arrange and put together well. Embryonic is a perfect example, 70 minutes long and only one song of 18 that I dislike.

I remember Lions in the Street, I'll check 'em out.

[Reverend Joe]

This is starting to feel like my blog. Maybe I should post pictures of my trip to the beach.

Anyhow.

I'd politely disagree about your comment on "making SO much more money", but then I realised that the mainstream music industry of all the major recording labels loves nothing more than making money.
*waves a tiny flag saying "indie!" *

I find that lengthy songs creating lengthy albums make for good listening. My recent favourites have average track lengths of about 9:30 minutes. Multiply that by eight and you have an album. One of my favs takes it to a such a degree with a double album of four tracks - total length: 87 minutes. You do the math. I like being able to hit "play" on an album and simply letting the music take over. Having to actively hit "next song" to get to the 'good stuff' is bothersome. Having an album that's terrific start-to-finish is hard to come by. I've found that the less tracks on the album equates to less chance of stuffing it up.

Though I must agree that some bands end up producing albums of "sonic mush" that kind of drags the whole album down. No matter how much you try and avoid it, it'll crop up every now and then.

PS: Hmmm, now that I've re-read your post, I suppose I'm a very patient listener compared to you.

I think we had some misunderstanding in communication (probably not a lot, though; in fact, now that I am about to clarify my statements, you will probably hate me a lot more.) Basically, I don't give two turds for the "music industry." It's an extremely poorly-run industry that is receiving a well-needed fist-**** by Adam Smith's invisible hand. When I speak about commercial accessibility, I'm talking about basic elements of your decision-making that make your music more easily accessible and appealing. This is not about using synths or altering your musical style; it's about allowing most people to listen to the music you produce.

(Oh, and just in case I'm freaking you out, Raz, I'm using the general "you", not you in particular.)

A basic element of songwriting that music producers and musicians discovered very early on is that, unlike the far more flexible world of live music, people listening to recordings prefer more succinct songs, because it's easier to absorb the whole song at once. When you go over five or six or so minutes or so, you risk people tuning the song out and automatically moving to the next one. This probably wasn't as much of a problem with LP's, when people were used to letting the album run through its entire side, but I still wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of people skipping tracks during the LP era as well (it's really not that hard.) Of course, there are musical genres that require longer tracks, but the vast majority of modern music thrives on the songwriter's ability to to construct a song within a limited framework, because that's what people want to hear.

Now, before you (Raz) tune me out, just consider that succinctness isn't all bad; in fact, it's one of the basic tools taught in writing in general. In fact, I would argue that most people want to create a hell of a lot more, but the problem is, everyone else doesn't really give a damn about their little ego trip. That's the problem with a lot of long songs: they are really, really masturbatory. They are just one long attempt to say, "hey, look at me, I can create the longest song in the world and it's awesome!" If you don't believe me, listen to a recording of Jimmy Page noodling for thirty ******* minutes. I guarantee you, you will want to kill him by the end of the song. Now, I'll grant, most people who do superlong songs aren't as egotistical as Page, but they are still motivated, to some extent by two factors: 1) they think they can create epic songs, and 2) they think other people will actually want to listen to them. And the fact of the matter is, whether or not they can create a successful superlong song, most people don't want to listen to them trying to prove that they are awesome. In fact, they could exercise much more songwriting skill by forcing themselves to select the very best of what they produced and cutting it down to a more accessible size; as a result, their song will be only the cream of the crop, and thus better as a whole.

I do have to agree with you on one point, though -- I hate having to skip songs, and I LOVE a solid album that you can listen to start to finish. That's one thing I like about the Lions' album; you can tell they wrote a lot more, but they only selected the songs they thought were the best, and as a result you can just press play and the whole album really takes over for you, ELP-length songs or no. And yes, I can be a very patient listener, as long as the album is good.

If I can collect myself for a moment, I will post a review of the (fairly) new Litmus album.

Or I might just get drunker.. we'll see. Watch for an edit.

I never sobered up here... lemme take another shot.

Litmus's first album was kind of a mess; it was a jumbled attempt to do everything that Hawkwind had done through its various phases of existence. On most songs, it pretty much worked ("Infinity Drive" is one of my favorite songs ever) but in many areas, even on the more successful songs, it just didn't work. Their second album was basically Judas Priest with a Hawkwind sheen (and don't get me wrong, I still LOVE it, it's just not really what I think they were trying to pull off.) But their third album seems to finally have found Litmus's sound.

Basically, it's an extension of Hawkwind's early/mid-70's sound, before they got involved with New Wave, and later collapsed into a crappy parody of themselves. If you are familiar with Def Leppard's debut album "On Through The Night," try and imagine the Leppard suddenly finding themselves melded with the '74 Hawkwind through some crazy time portal, and you will have a good idea of what to expect. The songs are appropriately long for space rock (see, Raz? I like long songs, too, as long as they have a reason to be long) but rather than being a rehash of your average space-rock group, they combine elements of space-rock with the arena-metal they picked up on "Planetfall." Don't worry, it's not too heavy of an influence, but it makes a big damn difference. In fact, if Litmus had been around in the 80's, this would be their major breakthrough; retro enough to sound very different, but still with enough synth-laden to have some real appeal. The beat is definitely Hawkwind-inspired, but again it could also slip itself into the 80's comfortably, and the guitars are heavy, but not so heavy that they are Slayer-style crazy. Overall, they sound like they should have been the sonic and spiritual successors to Hawkwind and the BOC during the 80's. Great, entertaining stuff; makes great music at a funky, drug-fueled party.

[Reverend Joe]

Well, it looks like I have another album to present. Don't take this as a sign of things to come; I just have a lot of free time to piss around.

Anyhow, in-between deciding that Dokken really isn't all that great and deciding that Rose Tattoo is the greatest Aussie band since Buffalo (Foghat and AC/DC in one band?! AWESOME!) I've been listening to the new album by Georgia, USA psychedelic rockers Dark Meat. For some reason, all they have on their myspace is older songs from their first album, plus a pretty good cover of Iggy Pop's "Success," but trust me, their second album is a lot better than the first. The first isn't all that bad, but it's too much of a jumbled mash of music to really work, and not in a good, Funkadelic way, more like some kids trying like hell to be Funkadelic way. Their second album, though, is much more focused, apparently a result of the band pruning itself down to nine members (from 20+). My first reaction was not so favorable, because it reminded me of shoegaze...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

**** SHOEGAZE! **** THE JESUS AND MARY CHAIN AND THE BRIAN JONESTOWN IDIOTS AND ALL THE REST! SHOEGAZE IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DAVE BROCK HAS DYSENTERY!

...I'm sorry. Anyway.

but upon giving it a second chance, it reminds me of psychedelic music proper. They remind me somewhat of Hawkwind now, only in an earlier, 60's incarnation. Which is not to say they sound 60's, either; they sound pretty modern, and definitely unique. It's kind of one part space rock, one part wannabe-60's crazy freak rock, and one part a bunch of people downing acid and Jack Daniel's and taking over a studio for twelve hours and mixing everything during the hangover. Not the best music ever, but really fun stuff.

[Hax]

I did a cover of The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" on the bouzouki. Tell me what you think, please.

[Reverend Joe]

I did a cover of The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" on the bouzouki. Tell me what you think, please.

Honestly, when you said you were doing a cover of a Who song with an obscure Grecian instrument, I was a bit apprehensive (I don't especially like the Who, and combine that with weird Slavic string instruments... ) But honestly, it's pretty good. You've got a real hippie folk-rock vibe going (and that IS what you were going for, right? Because that's definitely what I got.) Keep it up.

[Hax]

Honestly, when you said you were doing a cover of a Who song with an obscure Grecian instrument, I was a bit apprehensive (I don't especially like the Who, and combine that with weird Slavic string instruments... )

Infidel dog! How can you not like The Who?!

But seriously, the type of bouzouki I play is actually Irish.

But honestly, it's pretty good. You've got a real hippie folk-rock vibe going (and that IS what you were going for, right?)

Totally, cat. Peace and all that, dude.


I was indeed aiming for the folkrocky sound, after all..it's pretty hard to play metal on a bouzouki. I've tried.

Keep it up.

Thanks! And now, with video!

[Moros]

Wet Willy is awesome!

[Owen Glyndwr]

I've been getting into Quicksilver Messenger Service. They are just plain awesome. Part of the classic Psychedelic canon of the late sixties. I've also been getting into the Kinks album Arthur Or: The Decline and Fall of the British Empire. The link is to the first song off the album. The other Kinks song I really like is Do You Remember Walter

[naut]

I've been getting into Quicksilver Messenger Service.

I love their first two albums, especially Happy Trails. Shady Grove onwards not so much.

[Hooahguy]

theres a new Airboune album going to be released in April.
heres an example track:
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/mus...px?songID=2901

[Owen Glyndwr]

Anyone listen to Terrapin Station? Such a great song, I think. The climax coming out of Lady With a Fan and coming into Terrapin Station ("And the whistle is screamin'...Terrapin!) is just so great! One of my all time favorite parts of any rock song.